Echognome

I don't see the rush here. I'm glad to be playing 2/1 and just bid 2NT to hear what partner has to say.

♣J lead to the A. ♥K and Q cashed. Small ♣ lead and won by the K. Small spade lead and won by the T. ♥A cashed. ♣ to the Q (diamond discarded). Two more clubs cashed (West discards 2 spades) ♠A and ♦A cashed. Diamond ruffed.

I don't understand your point here. Suppose you get to the table and none of the cards are turned face up. One person is saying he saw an exposed card and the other says his accuser is having delusions from using LSD one time too many. Should we solve that by having a default that the player closest the north pole is always right? That way we don't have to make a judgment ruling at all!

You know both of the people that opened 2♥ quite well.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj9ha86da2ckqjt54&w=sq76hjt2d9643c863&e=st32hk74dkqjt85c9&s=sak854hq953d7ca72]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Table 1 Auction 1♠ - P - 2♣ - 3♦; 3♥ - 4♦ - 4♥ - P; 4NT - P - 5♥ - P; 6♥ - All Pass Score: +1430 Table 2 Auction 1♠ - P - 2♣ - 2♦; 2♥ - P - 3♣ - P; 4♦ - X - 6♣ - All Pass Score +1370

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqt6hat53d32ct932&w=skj73hj984dk98ck8&e=s9854h762djt65cj6&s=sa2hkqdaq74caq754]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Table 1 Auction P - P - 1♠ - Dbl; 2NT* - P - 3♠ - Dbl; P - 4♥ - All Pass *Limit Raise Score: +450 Table 2 Auction P - P - P - 1♣; Dbl - 1♥ - P - 2♦; P - 2♠* - P - 2NT; P - 3♣ - P - 3NT; All Pass *Ingberman Score: +460 Standard flat score result.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj94hk87654dat84c&w=s87hqj9dq762ct743&e=sk3hat32dj5caq865&s=saqt652hdk93ckj92]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Table 1 Auction: P - 2♥ - All Pass Score: +140 Table 2 Auction: P - 2♥ - P - 2♠; P - 4♣ - P - 4♠; All Pass Score: +450 I passed at Table 1 and questioned myself afterwards. From the comments above I feel better. Thanks!

Playing 2/1 GF. Apologies for not clarifying earlier.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saqt652hdk93ckj92]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) - 2♥ - (P) - ?[/hv] Obvious 2♠*? Or should we let partner fight it out in 2♥? *Note that we play 2♠ is forcing, so it's not a question of being able to play there.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sak854hq953d7ca72]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - (3♦); ?[/hv] I assume over 2♦, this is an easy 2♥ call, intending to complete your description on the next round. What about over this 3♦ call?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa2hkqdaq74caq754]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) - P - (1♠) - Dbl; (2NT*) - P - (3♠) - ?[/hv]*Limit Raise of spades You know one of the opponents doesn't have their bid (and given the vulnerability and position, you can probably guess who). The question is, what do we do now?

I agree with this. He just has to work harder on his mechanism to overcome the free-rider problem. Perhaps something like this. The town being visited has a vote on a referendum. If the referendum passes, then there is a special 0.25% city sales tax levied over the next X months to cover the amount of the funds being raised. Of course you also get to choose the majority needed to pass the referendum (simple majority, 2/3 vote, etc.). In return, the president is not allowed to disrupt the streets and traffic. In addition, one cost we expect the city to incur is the lost of sales tax due to decreased economic activity while people are stuck in traffic. I'm sure this mechanism carries its own distortions and doesn't capture the losses of all those affected by the motorcade, but you are going to face similar problems finding the right people to ask to donate as well.

There are alternative explanations for this: 1. They receive enjoyment (econ jargon utility) from the action of voting, whether that be some warm glow of being a part of the process or a sense of obligation or pressure from the people around them. 2. They do not understand probability and believe their vote counts (which we know it does in aggregate, just not individually). 3. Related to 1 - there is some external incentive to voting. I understand that in some countries you are required to vote. In other countries you receive a tax benefit if you vote. Etc.

Perhaps a more normal way to make it would be to hook the spade. Cross to the ♥K. Repeat the finesse of the K. Cash the ♠A and ruff a spade with dummy's last trump. Then ruff a minor suit, draw trumps, and claim. Still, I think the crux of the matter is the explanation given. Jeffrey's view of "takeout of both majors" is certainly one view, but "takeout of hearts" is another. I can't imagine anyone believing "takeout of diamonds", but I guess you'd have to ask.

I'm just saying that as an answer to "I play my worst bridge when I'm.." that partner could very well be the cause because of his behavior. I hardly ever get upset if partner makes a mistake, but I get upset when partner makes a mistake and then blames me for it! That makes me play worse. Given the choices in the poll, I thought one could interpret "on tilt because of partner" as being the closest option.

It's a cool poem, but I think it's kind of ironic that this is a poem about beautiful women in San Francisco. I didn't think San Francisco was known for that at all. Maybe it's just a poem about a dirty old man in San Francisco?

I wrote out my view in the other thread here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...38525&st=45&hl=

One way to interpret "on tilt because of partner" could be that you are on tilt, because partner has been berating you. Or you aren't playing your best, because your partner is being a <insert expletive here> jerk. That could tilt anyone.

I think we just need to apply some sensibility here. If I use my watch or have a private rule* about how to use external information on the board, whether it be vulnerability or board number modulus N or whatever, I feel that is within the spirit of the laws. If I bring an electronic random number generator to the table, then I feel that is an aid to technique. I understand that I'm saying I think it's ok to use a watch as a randomization device, but not a separate standalone randomization device. I view the difference mainly from the point of view of enforceability perspective. It seems highly impractical to ban people from wearing watches or looking at their watches. Are we going to also ban people from looking at the board number or vulnerability or who is dealer? Any laws that are completely unenforceable are pointless. However, banning someone bringing a device to the table for the specific purpose of producing random numbers would seem against the spirit of the "aid to technique" part of the laws. * I stress private rule, because I think it should be (is?) illegal to have an agreement with partner on your randomization rule, particularly if undisclosed and even if disclosed. For example, suppose partner and I both have a rule that if we have QJ tight, we play high on odd number boards and low on even number boards. My problem with having this rule, even if disclosed, is when would you disclose it? Would it require a pre-alert? You obvious cannot alert it while defending.

I think you are simplifying the situation. We're not just talking about disagreeing with a ruling here. If that were the case, then a simple request for a more detailed explanation of the ruling is in order, to which the TD can say "Here is my basis and you have the right to appeal." Here we are talking about the director making an opinion on arrival at the table. Obviously it's going to be a difficult situation and of course I'm sure we'll here a different side of the story if heard from the director's side. So what can you do in such a situation? Well unfortunately, all I think you can do is to take steps that everything is noted. If the director writes things down or clarifies them clearly and they are reasonable, then what's the problem? It will basically make Gonzalo look bad. But if the director is being unreasonable, yet refuses to write anything down or clearly state what he is implying, then it is back on the director who will look bad. If you are familiar with game theory, I would consider this a "brinkmanship" tactic in the sense that you are upping the ante by suggesting the dispute be written down. Having things in writing give credibility to arguments made later and, again, if it was Gonzalo being unreasonable, would work against him.

I actually think you did right in a way in asking the director to write things down. I think the director was wrong to start with an accusation and I can understand you being upset. I have had a few terrible calls over the years and there's not much you can do. I normally go for the repeat back to the director what I'm hearing, to make sure the director knows how he is sounding. Maybe something like this: "So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that we cannot get a ruling from you, because you say we always call the director unwarranted?" "No? Can you please then clarify what it is that you are saying, as we called you over here for a ruling?" "Can you write down the facts that we are stating?" "So you are saying that you refuse to write down any facts?" and so on... I think that makes it harder for the director to be unreasonable as you make them take stands on all of their issues. Also, note that I don't think you should ever feel the need to get violent. Yes it can be extremely frustrating, but try instead to feel pity for this poor soul who doesn't know better and is very poor at their job. Better to feel contempt than violent!

The first one seems an easy pass. On the second one, I'd probably double to get hearts in, but wouldn't object to 3♣.

I can think of two options. 1. Bid 4NT and if partner bids 5♦, bid 5♥. Partner will have to field your bid, but it will probably shut out the opponents. 2. Bid 3♣. The opponents are likely in a force after this and West will likely want to show his suit before any higher competition starts. Then if it goes something like (3♠) - P - (4♠) - ? you can then bid 5♥ (or if you are feeling conservative 4NT and pass 5♣ or correct 5♦ to 5♥). I like option 2. because I am not overly worried about it going all pass.

When I first read this I thought it might be: Day is to Week as Month is to Year As commonly used subsets, but it's a weak analogy and Y is not an option.

Once North shows out of spades, I think playing off the diamond AK is inferior (given the auction). If we disallow the 2♥ call, then I think the reasonable lines are letting the heart go around at trick 1 or playing for the elimination and throw-in. So I would let them keep all of 6♠ if I adjusted. I would certainly do it giving them some benefit of the doubt.